Defense attorneys for the man convicted of killing Chandra Levy plan to present evidence that former California Rep. Gary Condit should be reconsidered as a primary suspect at the upcoming retrial.
The 24 year-old Washington, D.C., intern’s disappearance in 2001 became a media sensation after allegations surfaced that she was having an affair with the married Democratic congressman. Defense attorneys will take depositions from three women who claim to be his former lovers in the new trial. The attorneys say they plan to argue that his allegedly “aggressive” sexual behavior towards them should make him a prime suspect in the murder.
“Mr. Condit was fully aware of the cost he could pay if his affair with Ms. Levy became public. He therefore had an obvious motive to kill Ms. Levy in order to keep the relationship secret, and an equally powerful motive to cover-up the circumstances of her death if she died while she was with him — either through his intentional conduct or otherwise,” they wrote in a May 18 court filing.
Though police repeatedly denied Condit was a suspect, the case inspired a whirlwind of speculation that is widely cited as having cost him his 2002 reelection bid, after which he left politics.
Levy’s body was found later that year in one of the city’s many parks, along with the sports attire she had been wearing. Ingmar Guandique was convicted of her death in 2010 after prosecutors argued he had previously committed a series of attacks on female joggers. Condit testified at the trial that he did not kill Levy, but would not elaborate on their relationship.
A retrial set for October 2016 was granted after Guandique’s representatives argued one of the key witnesses against their client had lied.
Prosecutors defended the original jury decision, stating in a court filing earlier this month that the “speculations of these witnesses about what they feel may have happened to Chandra Levy does not constitute competent admissible evidence.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Sines said at a recent hearing that the attorneys were trying to get media attention, arguing that their actions could make it challenging to conduct a fair trial.
“This is sensational, salacious and an effort to taint the jury pool,” Sines told the judge.
